R.R.PRASAD,J. - (1.) THE sole accused Surya Paharia having been put on trial for the charge under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code was found guilty and was convicted under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
(2.) THE informant Madan Kisku (P.W.3) who happens to be the maternal uncle of the appellant had given a piece of land a year before from the date of occurrence, i.e, 14.4.1988 over which the appellant after constructing a house was residing with his wife. In course of the time he married another girl and due to that reason there used to be altercations among them and, therefore, the informant asked the appellant to leave the village. Upon it, the appellant left the place and came along with his second wife, at her house to live and extended threat of setting the house of informant on fire. Thereafter, ten days before the date of occurrence one Logra Paharia came to his house and had had a drink (toddy) and thereafter informed him that the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 1000/ - to him for the purpose of killing him, but the informant did not take it seriously. This is said to be the motive. Further case is that on 14.4.1988 while he along with all other villagers except one or two had come to a (sic) time at about 11a.m. someone saw smoke coming out from his house, who ran over there and having seen the house in ablaze put off the fire. In that course Sakal Hembrom (P.W.1) and Miss Tara Kuri (P.W.2) informed that they saw the appellant fleeing away towards eastern side and by the time villagers reached over there, he had gone away. Further case is that on account of house being put on fire cereals, cloths, radio etc. kept in the room were burnt. Thereafter the informant submitted written report (Ext.1) before the Officer -in -Charge of Lalmatia Police Station, on the basis of which a case was registered under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole appellant. The matter was taken up for investigation and in course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, seized burnt piece of bamboo, wood, paddy etc. and prepared a seizure list (Ext.2). After completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and, accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken. In due course, when the charge was framed, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses Patwani Murmu (P.W.5) was tendered for cross -examination. P.W.4 Narad Thakur is a formal witness who has put his signature over the seizure list (Ext.2). P.W.3 Madan Kisku the informant, is admittedly not an eye witness. P.W.2 Miss Tara Kuri also appears to be hearsay witness. P.W.1 Sakal Hembrom has claimed to be an eye witness and has deposed that the appellant after setting the house on fire fled away towards eastern side. After the prosecution case was closed, the appellant was questioned about the incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to which he denied.
(3.) ON the basis of evidences brought on record, learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.;